Assessing the impact of systematic reviews on future research: two case studies

被引:0
|
作者
Viswanathan, Meera [1 ]
Nerz, Patrick [2 ]
Dalberth, Barbara [1 ]
Voisin, Christiane [3 ]
Lohr, Kathleen N. [4 ]
Tant, Elizabeth [1 ]
Jonas, Daniel E. [5 ]
Carey, Timothy [3 ]
机构
[1] RTI Int, Social Policy Hlth & Econ Res, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Dept City & Reg Planning, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[3] Univ N Carolina, Cecil G Sheps Ctr Hlth Serv Res, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[4] RTI Int, Social Stat & Environm Sci, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[5] Univ N Carolina, Div Gen Med, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
关键词
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; case studies; evaluation of research impact; Evidence-based Practice Centers; systematic reviews;
D O I
10.2217/CER.12.28
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Aims: To evaluate the impact of systematic reviews on research funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) through Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), and to identify barriers to and facilitators for the effects of these documents on future research. Methods & materials: Two AHRQ systematic reviews were selected as case studies to evaluate their impact on future research. Key citations generated by these reports were identified through ISI Web of Science and PubMed Central and traced forward to identify effects on subsequent studies through citation analysis from updated systematic reviews on the topics. Requests for applications and program announcements from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts website were reviewed and dissemination data were obtained from AHRQ. Finally, interviews were conducted with 13 key informants to help identify short-, medium-and long-term impacts of the EPC reviews. Results: The measurable impact of the two EPC reviews is demonstrably greater on short-term outcomes (greater awareness of the issues) than on medium-term (e. g., the generation of new knowledge) or long-term outcomes (e. g., changes in patient practice or health outcomes). Factors such as the topic and the timing of the report relative to the development of the field may explain the impact of these two AHRQ reports. The degree to which the new research can be directly attributed to the AHRQ reviews remains unclear. Key informants discussed several benefits stemming from the EPC reports, including providing a foundation for the research community on which to build, heightening awareness of the gaps in knowledge, increasing the quality of research and sparking new directions of research. However, the degree to which these reports were influential hinged on several factors including marketing efforts, the very nature of the reports and other influences external to the EPC domain. Conclusions: The findings outlined in this article illustrate the importance of numerous factors influencing future research: the breadth, specificity and readiness of the topic for more research, ongoing developments in the field, availability of funding and active engagement of champions. AHRQ and the EPCs may be able to improve the likelihood of impact by creating more targeted products, planning for and expanding dissemination activities, improving the readability and other attributes of the reports themselves, and actively involving funders early on and throughout the process of creating and publishing the reviews.
引用
收藏
页码:329 / 346
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Should We Exclude Inadequately Reported Studies From Qualitative Systematic Reviews? An Evaluation of Sensitivity Analyses in Two Case Study Reviews
    Carroll, Christopher
    Booth, Andrew
    Lloyd-Jones, Myfanwy
    QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2012, 22 (10) : 1425 - 1434
  • [42] What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies
    Haby, Michelle M.
    Barreto, Jorge Otavio Maia
    Kim, Jenny Yeon Hee
    Peiris, Sasha
    Mansilla, Cristian
    Torres, Marcela
    Guerrero-Magana, Diego Emmanuel
    Reveiz, Ludovic
    RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2024, 15 (01) : 2 - 20
  • [43] Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include registry-based studies: methodological challenges and areas for future research
    Mathes, Tim
    Zhang, Zhentian
    Pachanov, Alexander
    Pieper, Dawid
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2023, 156 : 119 - 122
  • [44] Does Indigenous health research have impact? A systematic review of reviews
    Kinchin, Irina
    Mccalman, Janya
    Bainbridge, Roxanne
    Tsey, Komla
    Lui, Felecia Watkin
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR EQUITY IN HEALTH, 2017, 16
  • [45] Does Indigenous health research have impact? A systematic review of reviews
    Irina Kinchin
    Janya Mccalman
    Roxanne Bainbridge
    Komla Tsey
    Felecia Watkin Lui
    International Journal for Equity in Health, 16
  • [46] Revisiting systematic reviews on deprescribing trials to better inform future practice and research
    Spinewine, Anne
    Reeve, Emily
    Thompson, Wade
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2023, 89 (12) : 3758 - 3764
  • [47] Systematic reviews on mistletoe in cancer - What implications for future research can be drawn?
    Kienle, G. S.
    Kiene, H.
    PHYTOMEDICINE, 2007, 14 : 13 - 13
  • [48] Progress in Using Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies to Improve Translational Research
    Hooijmans, C. R.
    Ritskes-Hoitinga, M.
    PLOS MEDICINE, 2013, 10 (07)
  • [49] Automated screening of research studies for systematic reviews using study characteristics
    Guy Tsafnat
    Paul Glasziou
    George Karystianis
    Enrico Coiera
    Systematic Reviews, 7
  • [50] Automated screening of research studies for systematic reviews using study characteristics
    Tsafnat, Guy
    Glasziou, Paul
    Karystianis, George
    Coiera, Enrico
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2018, 7 : 64